Russel v. Town of Hickory

Citations

• 116 Miss. 46
• 76 So. 825

Syllabus

<p>1. Quieting Title. Complaint. Sufficiency.</p> <p>In all suits to confirm title or to remove clouds it is the duty of the complainant to deraign title and in deraigning title, a general statement that the complainant is the real owner is insufficient.</p> <p>2. Quieting Title. Complainant. Sufficiency. Code 1892, Section 4011.</p> <p>Where the town of Hickory a municipal corporation filed a bill alleging that it was the owner of certain school property and that defendants had taken possession of such property and that complainant was entitled to an injunction restraining defendants from trespassing thereon, and praying a decree removing any cloud from its title. The bill alleged that the land had been conveyed to the trustees of the Hickory Institute, and their successors in office in 1889 for the benefit of the citizens of Hickory and the surrounding community and while it did not so specifically aver, it appeared that defendants claimed title from the same source under a clause providing for forfeiture when the property should be abandoned for educational purposes. The conveyance was made before the enactment of Code of 1892, section 4011, authorizing a municipality to become a separate school district and before the enactment of section 3343, Code 1906,/authorizing municipalities “to erect, purchase, or rent school houses” and the bill did not aver that the property had been deeded to the municipality for school purposes. In such case the bill was insufficient to show that the municipality had title to the property.</p> <p>3. Injunction. Remedy. Scope.</p> <p>The law is well settled that a defendant in possession under á dona-fide claim of title should not summarily be removed by mandatory process in tjie chancery court, especially where there is no averment that irreparable damages will be done the complainants.</p>